February 15, 2007 Meeting Summary
Fellow Toastmasters:
First, my humble apologies to all of you for the very vague summary that follows. I was looking around the room to see who was summarizing for today and did not realize that it was supposed to be me. As such I took no notes and will have to rely on my keen sense of recall.
Our Toastmaster Betsy opened the meeting by sharing (and demonstrating) the theme for the day which was 'Alliteration'. Betsy acknowledged our guests: Andrew from Individual Life New Business, Brendan from Technical Engineering and the returning Rob who announced that he is our newest member. Welcome to Mutual Voices Rob!
Kathy, our Wordmaster / Grammarian introduced the Word of the Day which was insipid. The meaning of insipid is as follows:
1. Lacking flavor or zest; not tasty.
2. Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest; dull.
Betsy introduced Mary W who served as our Timer for the day and then itwas on to our first speaker, Marian J. Marian's speech was titled"The Road to Sinagogo". In her speech from the Storytelling Manual(Telling a Story From History) Marian recalled in vivid detail the story ofher father and his close friend as they served in WW II. She told of aparticularly onerous battle over a monastery in Italy. The story was compelling and rich with descriptive language and imagery. A very poignanttelling of a very personal story.
Our next speaker was Laura B who aptly titled her speech"Communicate Kindly with Canines". In this speech from the CompetentCommunicator manual (Vocal Variety) Laura demonstrated two very different ways to communicate with dogs. The first she referred to as "yank and yell" and involved the use of pinch or choke collars coupled with a harsher approach to communication to get the dog to comply with your wishes. The second was more gentle and involved softer, less painful collars and a warmer, praising style of communication.
Laura shared many different examples displaying a great deal of vocal variety. Laura's point was toteach that there are two different approaches, not that one approach is better than the other. She stressed that you need to consider the situation and the personality of the dog.
Sarah J was our Table Topics Master. Her first question went to MarkH and was "What are your experiences with writing poetry and alliteration as a technique?" Mark recalled a poetry writing contest he entered in grade school for the parochial school district. Mark couldn'tremember many of the details from the poem. He did recall that it ha a faith-based theme and that it likely didn't involve alliteration or even rhyming for that matter. He did win the contest and as a result had torecite his poem at some Catholic Women's meeting. Mark does like alliteration and is a big fan of incorporating it into his speeches.
Next Sara asked Jeff S if he could recall any tongue-twisters from his youth that were particularly difficult or memorable. Jeff admittedthat he couldn't recall any tongue-twisters (other than the one Sarar ecited) but that in college he did fancy himself as something of a rap artist. He and his friends would "bust out a rhyme" but he couldn't repeatany of his raps as they might not be appropriate in a corporate setting.
Finally, Sara directed her last question to our newest member, Rob W. Rob was asked if head done any rapping in college. Rob informed that he was not himself a rapper. He did however work with a guy at Perkins who liked to rap. He would recite other artist's raps and modify the words to be about Perkins.
Dave B evaluated Marian's speech. Dave was awed by the detailed and beautiful language that Marian used to tell her father's story. He felt transported to the scene and felt that he could see, smell and feel what she was describing. As a developmental note he suggested that Marian could have gone even further with her vocal variety to build tension and excitement, particularly at the climax of the story. His one word description of her speech - "Awesome".
Keri O evaluated Laura's speech. She felt that Laura picked a goodsubject-matter for her vocal variety speech. She appreciated herorganization and felt that her movement was purposeful. From a developmental perspective, she thought the absence of an actual dog hindered the speech a bit, but conceded that having one was not possible. Suggested perhaps a stuffed dog or some other sort of prop.
Mary & Kathy provided the Timer and Wordmaster / Grammarian reports. DanB followed with the General Evaluation. Dan praised Betsy for managing the meeting well and keeping it on track. He liked the Word of the Day and thanked Mary for stepping in as the Timer. He felt both evaluations were good examples of active listening with lots of good examples from the speeches and specific ideas for improvement.
The Spirit Award was given to Marian for her wonderful speech.
This was the first week of our Membership Contest. There have been modifications to the scoring in order to get more people involved and make it more interesting. The scoring for guests remains the same, five points for the member who brings them to their first meeting and one point forevery meeting they attend as a guest after that. Five additional point sare given to the sponsoring member when their guest becomes a new member. For all other members at each meeting, one point is awarded for filling ameeting role (other than Speaker) and two points are given to the prepared speaker. I attached a spreadsheet with today's results and will update itand send it out each week until the contest is complete.
Congratulationsto our current leader Jeff S with 11 points. Join us next week when Mary W will be the Toastmaster and Roxie N and Dan B will be our prepared speakers. Bring a guest and gain valuable points in our Membership Contest! See you all next week!
First, my humble apologies to all of you for the very vague summary that follows. I was looking around the room to see who was summarizing for today and did not realize that it was supposed to be me. As such I took no notes and will have to rely on my keen sense of recall.
Our Toastmaster Betsy opened the meeting by sharing (and demonstrating) the theme for the day which was 'Alliteration'. Betsy acknowledged our guests: Andrew from Individual Life New Business, Brendan from Technical Engineering and the returning Rob who announced that he is our newest member. Welcome to Mutual Voices Rob!
Kathy, our Wordmaster / Grammarian introduced the Word of the Day which was insipid. The meaning of insipid is as follows:
1. Lacking flavor or zest; not tasty.
2. Lacking qualities that excite, stimulate, or interest; dull.
Betsy introduced Mary W who served as our Timer for the day and then itwas on to our first speaker, Marian J. Marian's speech was titled"The Road to Sinagogo". In her speech from the Storytelling Manual(Telling a Story From History) Marian recalled in vivid detail the story ofher father and his close friend as they served in WW II. She told of aparticularly onerous battle over a monastery in Italy. The story was compelling and rich with descriptive language and imagery. A very poignanttelling of a very personal story.
Our next speaker was Laura B who aptly titled her speech"Communicate Kindly with Canines". In this speech from the CompetentCommunicator manual (Vocal Variety) Laura demonstrated two very different ways to communicate with dogs. The first she referred to as "yank and yell" and involved the use of pinch or choke collars coupled with a harsher approach to communication to get the dog to comply with your wishes. The second was more gentle and involved softer, less painful collars and a warmer, praising style of communication.
Laura shared many different examples displaying a great deal of vocal variety. Laura's point was toteach that there are two different approaches, not that one approach is better than the other. She stressed that you need to consider the situation and the personality of the dog.
Sarah J was our Table Topics Master. Her first question went to MarkH and was "What are your experiences with writing poetry and alliteration as a technique?" Mark recalled a poetry writing contest he entered in grade school for the parochial school district. Mark couldn'tremember many of the details from the poem. He did recall that it ha a faith-based theme and that it likely didn't involve alliteration or even rhyming for that matter. He did win the contest and as a result had torecite his poem at some Catholic Women's meeting. Mark does like alliteration and is a big fan of incorporating it into his speeches.
Next Sara asked Jeff S if he could recall any tongue-twisters from his youth that were particularly difficult or memorable. Jeff admittedthat he couldn't recall any tongue-twisters (other than the one Sarar ecited) but that in college he did fancy himself as something of a rap artist. He and his friends would "bust out a rhyme" but he couldn't repeatany of his raps as they might not be appropriate in a corporate setting.
Finally, Sara directed her last question to our newest member, Rob W. Rob was asked if head done any rapping in college. Rob informed that he was not himself a rapper. He did however work with a guy at Perkins who liked to rap. He would recite other artist's raps and modify the words to be about Perkins.
Dave B evaluated Marian's speech. Dave was awed by the detailed and beautiful language that Marian used to tell her father's story. He felt transported to the scene and felt that he could see, smell and feel what she was describing. As a developmental note he suggested that Marian could have gone even further with her vocal variety to build tension and excitement, particularly at the climax of the story. His one word description of her speech - "Awesome".
Keri O evaluated Laura's speech. She felt that Laura picked a goodsubject-matter for her vocal variety speech. She appreciated herorganization and felt that her movement was purposeful. From a developmental perspective, she thought the absence of an actual dog hindered the speech a bit, but conceded that having one was not possible. Suggested perhaps a stuffed dog or some other sort of prop.
Mary & Kathy provided the Timer and Wordmaster / Grammarian reports. DanB followed with the General Evaluation. Dan praised Betsy for managing the meeting well and keeping it on track. He liked the Word of the Day and thanked Mary for stepping in as the Timer. He felt both evaluations were good examples of active listening with lots of good examples from the speeches and specific ideas for improvement.
The Spirit Award was given to Marian for her wonderful speech.
This was the first week of our Membership Contest. There have been modifications to the scoring in order to get more people involved and make it more interesting. The scoring for guests remains the same, five points for the member who brings them to their first meeting and one point forevery meeting they attend as a guest after that. Five additional point sare given to the sponsoring member when their guest becomes a new member. For all other members at each meeting, one point is awarded for filling ameeting role (other than Speaker) and two points are given to the prepared speaker. I attached a spreadsheet with today's results and will update itand send it out each week until the contest is complete.
Congratulationsto our current leader Jeff S with 11 points. Join us next week when Mary W will be the Toastmaster and Roxie N and Dan B will be our prepared speakers. Bring a guest and gain valuable points in our Membership Contest! See you all next week!
posted by Mutual Voices Toastmasters | 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home